Re: [TLS] relax certificate_list requirements - opinion call (was Re: [tls13-spec] relax certificate_list ordering requirements to match current practice (#169)) I wonder if anyone is reading the full subject line or does it just get truncated at some poi

Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz> Tue, 19 May 2015 12:11 UTC

Return-Path: <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93EEE1A872F for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 May 2015 05:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iYLAmxHpp5dN for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 May 2015 05:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.auckland.ac.nz (mx4.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.125.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6847F1A88D0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 May 2015 05:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=auckland.ac.nz; i=@auckland.ac.nz; q=dns/txt; s=mail; t=1432037469; x=1463573469; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=+ZhcZPEmz49zR0WYzh7/YhMObytVkoG6T7ot7br9fB4=; b=xFTAB1OTnm+gdY9TJ+uuJJbx9ShgBJ9ydyX/2UGpqbab1dNkQif5z5lR yyTOZAbQ3EqiWAK3tMJemE2FVMoJzF9FM8SJu2TGOfa4IVUiMxZLtEhyk ZSNsCJuSR69ZZEUITyJImW6Q4R4EtyhmEb90OT+i+bdzvwahmVb6DcVOr zHznJNxtSGpFQHJSfKtvjt+U1Iv8trfhmcCi968NN9UJ5YePB0KGopQ15 1cXzTV5e/3/L26a6OllaxWslUAc4SVlWbIUxaYFpakS9wSAVmEvexWZPz NyIHLt/O2ape4cqKFM4JLtAWIxu1CxGS89ndQMgei9hLv/9g7BMV47bCS w==;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,457,1427713200"; d="scan'208";a="16882793"
X-Ironport-HAT: MAIL-SERVERS - $RELAYED
X-Ironport-Source: 130.216.4.112 - Outgoing - Outgoing
Received: from uxchange10-fe1.uoa.auckland.ac.nz ([130.216.4.112]) by mx4-int.auckland.ac.nz with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 20 May 2015 00:11:07 +1200
Received: from UXCN10-TDC05.UoA.auckland.ac.nz ([169.254.9.151]) by uxchange10-fe1.UoA.auckland.ac.nz ([130.216.4.112]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 20 May 2015 00:11:07 +1200
From: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
To: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] relax certificate_list requirements - opinion call (was Re: [tls13-spec] relax certificate_list ordering requirements to match current practice (#169)) I wonder if anyone is reading the full subject line or does it just get truncated at some poi
Thread-Index: AdCSLOLGJVnE1j84SD6Bm7bXqoznGw==
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 12:11:07 +0000
Message-ID: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73AB02512C@uxcn10-tdc05.UoA.auckland.ac.nz>
Accept-Language: en-NZ, en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-NZ
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.216.158.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/Jyh50iAd2RLn4LRYrUHuWrcp0P4>
Subject: Re: [TLS] relax certificate_list requirements - opinion call (was Re: [tls13-spec] relax certificate_list ordering requirements to match current practice (#169)) I wonder if anyone is reading the full subject line or does it just get truncated at some poi
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 12:11:19 -0000

Dave Garrett <davemgarrett@gmail.com>; writes:

>Who else is in favor or against, at the moment?

I'm in favour of relaxing the requirements to match real-world practice.

Peter.